list_theses

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the ordering behavior ('newest first') and optional filtering (ticker, status, limit), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, error conditions, or scope limitations beyond the listed arguments.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exceptionally concise, using a short opening phrase and a clean 'Args:' block to document parameters. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, ordering, and parameters. However, it omits any usage guidance or contextual examples, making it slightly incomplete for an agent that needs to decide when to invoke this tool over others.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides clear meanings for all three parameters: ticker as an optional symbol filter, status as an optional 'open' or 'closed' filter, and limit as the maximum number to return. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Recorded theses, newest first,' identifying the resource and ordering. The tool name 'list_theses' clarifies the action, and it is distinguishable from siblings like get_thesis or close_thesis. However, the description lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Retrieve,' making it slightly less direct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_thesis or close_thesis. The description only lists parameters and does not mention use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.